International Journal of Scientific Research and Management (IJSRM)

||Volume||07||Issue||07||Pages||EC-2019-261-267||2019||
Website: www.ijsrm.in ISSN (e): 2321-3418
DOI: 10.18535/ijsrm/v7i7.ec01

Comparison between the Empirical and Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement

Design Methods
Dr. Mohammed Mahmoud Shallal, Eng. Elsir Suliman Ahmed
Newtech Consulting Group
Abstract
In this paper a comparative study has been carried out between the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement
Design Methods and the Empirical Pavement Design Methods. For the purpose of this paper, nine
pavement design sections have been prepared using the Mechanistic-Empirical Methods represented by
the Asphalt Institute Design Method (SW-1 software of the Asphalt Institute) and the Empirical Design
represented by AASHTO 1993 and TRL Road Note No.31, using the same traffic loading and subgrade
strength. Three traffic loading scenarios have been considered for this study.

Key words: Mechanistic-Empirical, Empirical, axle loads, Subgrade Strength, pavement design
1. Introduction
Design should aim at providing adequate cover to the subgrade so that the stresses at the subgrade level are
low enough to prevent excessive deformation. Many design methods have been developed to suit different
climatic and traffic loading conditions.
2. Pavement Design Approaches
Many methods of designing flexible pavement have been developed by various transportation agencies and
evolved throughout the years. These methods range from very simple in concept to highly sophisticated.
Although different agencies have been using design procedures that satisfy their local conditions, pavement
design methods can be grouped into four distinct approaches: (1)
2.1 Methods Based on Experience
Many agencies have been adopting standard pavement sections for different ranges of traffic levels and
environmental conditions. These standard sections are mostly based on previous experience and are
applicable to local materials and budget practice. Although these methods are old, they are still being used
by relatively small agencies because of their simplicity, low design cost, and reliability under certain
conditions. These methods, however, do not allow for comparison between alternatives. They also do not
recognize the varying serviceability with age. These methods also assume average material properties,
traffic levels, and environmental conditions. If any of these variables change, this approach looses its
validity. (1)
2.2 Methods Based on Soil Formula or Simple Strength Tests
These methods are based on empirical correlations between the required pavement thickness and soil
classification or simple strength tests of subgrade materials such as California Bearing Ratio (CBR). This
approach is also old and assumes that traffic load is mostly carried by subgrade, whereas pavement layers
are mainly used for smoothness and dust control. Similar to the previous approach, these methods
are simple, have low design cost, and could be reliable under certain conditions. The disadvantages are,
these methods do not recognize the varying serviceability with age. These methods also assume average
pavement material properties, traffic levels, and environmental conditions. (1)
2.3 Methods Based on Statistical Evaluation of Pavement Performance

Dr. Mohammed Mahmoud Shallal, IJSRM Volume 07 Issue 07 July 2019 [www.ijsrm.in] EC-2019-261
These methods are based on extensive field observation of pavement performance under different conditions
and developing empirical relations between pavement thickness and material properties, traffic, and
environmental conditions. Once these empirical relations are defined, the designer can input various input
parameters and determine the required thicknesses of different layer. A typical example of this approach is
the 1993 AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) design method
(AASHTO, 1993). The main advantage of this approach over previous 8-10 The Handbook of Highway
Engineering © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC approaches is that the method considers the change of
serviceability with pavement age. Thus, the designer can design a pavement section to last for a certain
designed life with a predetermined serviceability level. This approach also considers in-service conditions
and is not based of simple theoretical assumptions. It also allows for economic comparison between design
alternatives.
This approach, however, still suffers from the dependency on empirical relations that are limited to the
conditions under which they were developed. If changes occur in any input parameters such as increasing
axle loads and tyre pressure or if a new pavement material is used such as modified asphalt binders, the
method would not be valid. (1)
2.4 Methods Based on Structural Analysis of Layered Systems
This approach is more fundamental than all other approaches since it considers basic material responses
such a stresses, strains, and deformations. In such cases, the traffic load is applied on a simulated
multilayered-pavement system and the critical material responses are calculated. These critical response
parameters are then correlated to performance using transfer functions, typically based on empirical
relations. The designer, therefore, has the capability to determine the required layer thicknesses so that the
pavement would last for the required designed life without exceeding predetermined distress levels. This
approach represents a major improvement over others due to its accuracy and reliability. However, this
approach requires extensive testing and computations. Methods based on this approach also
incorporate empirical correlations, although the degree of empiricism is small. In addition, theoretical
models require extensive calibration and verification since the incorporated assumptions may not exactly
match field conditions. The proposed AASHTO mechanistic-empirical pavement design method (NCHRP,
2003) follows the
last approach. Future approaches are expected to be more rational with less, or even no, dependency on
empirical relations.
3. Design methods used:
3.1 AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design Method:
The American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) Road Test at Ottawa, Illinois provided the
basis for calculating the required pavement thickness. Models were developed that related pavement
performance, vehicle loadings, strength of roadbed soils, and the pavement structure. The purpose of the
AASHTO model in the pavement thickness design process is to calculate the Required Structural Number
(SN). This is the strength of the pavement that must be constructed to carry the mixed vehicle loads over the
roadbed soil, while providing satisfactory serviceability during the design period. Knowing the SN, the
pavement layer thickness or overlay thickness can be calculated. Vehicle loads are expressed in 18-kip (80-
kiloNewton) Equivalent Single Axle Loads 18-kip (80-kN) ESAL. (2)
3.2 TRL Road No. 31 for Bitumen-Surface Roads: Road Note 31 (RN31), developed by the Transport &
Road Research Laboratories (TRRL) for developing countries, presents a guide to the structural design of
bitumen – surfaced roads in tropical and sub – tropical countries. The fourth edition of RN31 considers the
traffic loading in terms of the cumulative number of standard axles on the basis of which the type of
surfacing, base and sub-base are selected. This edition extended the design of previous editions to cater for
traffic up to 30 million equivalent standard axles. It also has accommodated variability in materials
properties, traffic forecasts, effect of climate and the axle loads. Also the range of structures has been
expanded to provide more detailed advice on specifications and techniques. It provides eight traffic classes
ranges from T1 to T8. T1 represents the traffic that less than 0.3 million ESA during the design period,
while T8 represents the traffic that between 17 million ESA and 30 million ESA, during the design period.
Dr. Mohammed Mahmoud Shallal, IJSRM Volume 07 Issue 07 July 2019 [www.ijsrm.in] EC-2019-262
The road note 31 (4th edition), provides six classes of subgrade strength in terms of CBR, that ranges from
2% to 30%. For the prepared designs, the RN31-4th edition provides eight design charts. Each design chart
consists of many designs according to the two main factors prescribed above; the traffic and the subgrade
strength. (3)
3.3 The Asphalt Institute Method for Structural Thickness Design for Pavements: the Asphalt
Institute method for structural thickness design for pavements allows various combinations of asphalt
concrete, emulsified asphalt and granular layers. It offers guidelines for defining subgrade properties,
material properties and traffic values required for the selection of appropriate thickness of the pavement
layers. In this design procedure the pavement is regarded as a multi-layered elastic system. The materials in
each layer are characterized by a modulus of elasticity (E) and Poisson, s ratio (µ). Traffic is expressed in
terms of repetitions of an equivalent 80 KN (18000 Ib) single-axle load applied to the pavement on two sets
of dual tires. For pavements composed of full-depth asphalt layers the pavement is regarded as a three-layer
system. The pavement with the untreated aggregate is considered a four-layer system. The subgrade, the
lowest layer, is assumed infinite in the vertically downward and horizontal directions. The other layers, of
finite thickness, are assumed infinite in the extent in the horizontal directions. (4)
3. The Design Software of the Asphalt Institute SW-1:
Computer Programs Various computer programs based on Burmister's layered theory have been developed .
The earliest and the best known is the CHEV program developed by the Chevron Research Company
(Warren and Dieckmann, 1963). The program can be applied only to linear elastic materials but was
modified by the Asphalt Institute in the DAMA program to account for nonlinear elastic granular materials
(Hwang and Witczak, 1979). (6)
SW-1 was designed for pavement design professionals who may need to design pavements for a wide
variety of uses including airports, roadways, and parking lots. SW-1 provides a computerized methodology
for thickness design of asphalt pavements for a wide variety of pavement uses. SW-1 is based on the
respected design procedures of the Asphalt Institute as detailed in several Asphalt Institute manual series
(MS), information series (IS), and research report (RR) documents. These methods are based on
mechanistic-empirical principles and have been developed and refined over a period of 30 years by the
Asphalt Institute. SW-1 is a new Microsoft Windows-based computerized method for pavement thickness
design that builds upon four familiar Asphalt Institute DOS computer programs for pavement design. The
four DOS-base programs were DAMA (CP-1), HWLOAD (CP-2), AIRPORT (CP-3), and HWY (CP-4)
(49). The developers of SW-1 embedded the original computational algorithms from DAMA, HWLOAD,
AIRPORT, and HWY into SW-1 and developed a new Windows user-interface to collect input data, report
output, and manage data files. SW-1 uses the resilient modulus to characterize subgrade stiffness, but can
correlate from CBR or R-values are the user has this type of information. The user is asked to select the
type of strength measure, input the stiffness values, and select design subgrade value in order to calculate
the Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus. CBR and R-value correlations of the Asphalt Institute are
considered applicable to fine-grained soils classified as CL, CH, ML, SC, SM, and SP (Unified Soil
Classification) or for materials that are estimated to have a resilient modulus of 30,000 psi, or less. These
correlations are not applicable to granular materials, such as base aggregate, which may require direct
laboratory testing to obtain resilient modulus values or using other correlations. (5)

Dr. Mohammed Mahmoud Shallal, IJSRM Volume 07 Issue 07 July 2019 [www.ijsrm.in] EC-2019-263
 Chart No. (1): SW-1 Design Report
4 The Pavement Design Sections:
4.1 Design Methods Used: For the purpose of this study, three pavement design methods have been used,
two methods are representing the Empirical and Semi- Empirical Pavement Design Methods namely TRL
Road Note No.31 and AASHTO 1993, and the third one is the Asphalt Institute method representing the
Mechanistic-Empirical Design Methods. The pavement design software (SW-1) of the Asphalt Institute has
been used to prepare the pavement design sections.
4.2 Traffic Loading: Three traffic loading scenarios has been used to develop the pavement design
sections; (1-3 million ESA), (3-10 million ESA) and (10-20 million ESA). These traffic loading ranges
exist in the traffic loading categories provided in the road note No.31, so have been used as they are. But
for AASHTO 1993 & Asphalt Institute Methods, the traffic loading considered in the mid of the category.
4.3 Subgrade Strength: One value of (CBR =15 %) has been used representing the subgrade strength
against the three loading scenarios. The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is used directly in the TRL Road
Note No. 31 Design Charts, but it needs to be converted into Resilient Modulus (MR) to be used in the
AASHTO 1993 Design Method and the Asphalt Institute Design Method. The Asphalt Institute correlation
of (1 CBR = 1500 PSI) is applicable only for fine soils. Accordingly the correlation chart of (Van Til et al –
1972)3 has been used. The MR equivalent to 15 % CBR is found as 90 Mpa.
4.4 The obtained Pavement Sections: the table No. (1) below summarizes the obtained pavement sections
using:
 Design Charts of the TRL Road Note No. 31.
 AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design Method.
 SW-1 (the Pavement Design software of the Asphalt Institute).
All of the pavement structures considered in this study are simple three/two layer flexible structures,
consisting of an asphalt concrete (AC) on top of a granular base/subbase. The full depth asphalt and the
emulsified asphalt were not considered in this comparative study.

Dr. Mohammed Mahmoud Shallal, IJSRM Volume 07 Issue 07 July 2019 [www.ijsrm.in] EC-2019-264
Table No. (1): The obtained Pavement Sections
Design Data Description Pavement Design Section Using

Road Note AASHTO Asphalt

No. 31 1993 Design Institute
Design Method Design
Charts Software
SW-1
T= (1-3) * Asphalt Concrete 50 75 150
106 ESA
S = 15 % Base 175 200 300

Subbase 125 125 0

Pavement S.N 2.35 2.93 4.37

T= (3-10) * Asphalt Concrete 50 100 150

106 ESA
S = 15 % Base 200 200 470

Subbase 175 200 0

Pavement S.N 2.68 3.61 5.45

T= (10-20) * Asphalt Concrete 150 150 300

106 ESA
S = 15 % Base 250 250 450

Subbase 100 100 0

Pavement S.N 4.41 4.41 7.8

T: Traffic loading, S: Subgrade Strength, S.N: Structural Number

4.5 Calculations of the structural numbers: the structural number for each pavement section has been
calculated using the AASHTO 1993 equation:
SN = a1D1+a2m2D2+a3m3D3
Where (SN: Structural Number, a: layer coefficient, m: drainage coefficient).

Dr. Mohammed Mahmoud Shallal, IJSRM Volume 07 Issue 07 July 2019 [www.ijsrm.in] EC-2019-265
 9

5 TRL RN No. 31
AASHTO
4
SW-1
3

0
SN 1 SN2 SN3

Chart No. (2): The Structural numbers of the obtained Pavement Section

5. Discussion & Conclusion:

A. In this comparative study, pavement design sections prepared using the Mechanistic-Empirical
Methods represented by the Asphalt Institute Pavement Design Method (SW-1 software of the
Asphalt Institute) and the Empirical Pavement Design represented by AASHTO 1993 and TRL Road
Note No.31.
B. Three scenarios of traffic loading has been selected (1-3 Million ESA), (3-10 Million ESA) and (10-
20 Million ESA) respectively. One value of subgrade strength has been used in the three scenarios
(CBR = 15% when using TRL RN31 and equivalent to MR = 90 Mpa when using AASHTO 1993 or
Asphalt Institute methods).
C. The obtained pavement design sections and their calculated structural numbers shows the following:
 The Mechanistic-Empirical methods (Asphalt Institute) give thicker pavements compared to the
Empirical methods (TRL Road Note No.31 & AASHTO 1993), especially on the Asphalt Concrete
layer.
 In the first Scenario, the asphalt concrete (AC) layer thickness obtained by the SW-1 (Asphalt
Institute) is two times the AC using AASHTO 1993 and three times the AC using the RN 31. The
thickness of the aggregate base layer of the Asphalt Institute (no subbase) is almost equal to the
thickness of the base & subbase together using AASHTO 1993 & RN 31.

6. Recommendations:
 The Asphalt Institute as a Mechanical Empirical method has many advantages over the empirical
methods, considering the horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer to minimize
fatigue cracking and considering the vertical compressive strain on the top of subgrade to reduce the
permanent deformation. The Asphalt Institute method of Design assures very little strength for
aggregate base which result in thick asphalt concrete. The obtained design sections in this study
showed thick asphalt layer compared to the other two empirical methods, which affecting the
construction costs. Therefore it is advisable to do the following:
 Avoid designing roads on weak subgrades, and if the subgrade strength is low, some kind of
improvement should be done. This helps to get reasonable design thickness.
 The Asphalt Institute recommends using 130 mm minimum AC for heavy traffic. The last
scenario of loading in this study shows 300 mm AC and 450 mm base. So conversion factors

Dr. Mohammed Mahmoud Shallal, IJSRM Volume 07 Issue 07 July 2019 [www.ijsrm.in] EC-2019-266
 can be used to convert part of the AC in granular layer, keeping the minimum AC, and this
can contribute to reduce the cost of construction.
 As traffic forecasting has always been a source of uncertainty, and results in big difference in
the thickness using different methods, it is advisable to use shorter design lives.

8. References:
[1] T.F.FWA, 2006, the Handbook of Highway Engineering.
[2] Florida Department of Transportation, January 2005, Flexible Pavement Design Manual.
[3] TRL, 1993, Road Note 31: A guide to the structural design of bituminous surfaced roads in tropical
and sub-tropical countries, 4th edition, London.
[4] Asphalt Institute, 2008, Asphalt Pavements for Highways & Streets, Manual Series No.1 (MS-1), 9th
edition, Lexington, KY, USA.
[5] Asphalt Institute, 2005, User' Guide for Asphalt Pavement Design Software for Highways, Airports,
Heavy Wheel Loads and other applications (SW-1).
[6] Yang H.Huang (2004), Pavement Analysis and Design.
[7] AASHTO (1993), Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
[8] AASHTO (2008), Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
[9] Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), 2011, Pavement Design Guide, published by Texas
Department of Transportation.
[10] Mohammed Mahmoud Shallal, 2010, paper on: Traffic Loading for Pavement Design, published by
Journal of Building and Road Research, volume 9, Building & Road Research Institute, University
of Khartoum, Sudan.
[11] Mohammed Mahmoud Shallal, 2014, paper on: Rational Structural Designs for Highways in
Different Climatic Zones in Sudan, published by IOSR Journal of Engineering, volume 4.

Dr. Mohammed Mahmoud Shallal, IJSRM Volume 07 Issue 07 July 2019 [www.ijsrm.in] EC-2019-267